The Supreme Court Just Ruled on Roundup. Your Case Is Not Automatically Over.
You saw the headline. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 7-2 in Monsanto v. Durnell that federal law blocks most state-level lawsuits claiming Roundup’s maker failed to warn users about cancer risks. Maybe you used Roundup for years — on your property, at your job, as a volunteer in St. Louis parks like the man whose case reached the highest court in the country — and then a doctor said the words non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Maybe you already have a lawyer, or a filed claim, or a diagnosis you have been sitting with for months, waiting to act. And now a headline tells you the door just closed.
It did not close all the way. The ruling is real. It is a significant legal setback for one specific type of claim — the failure-to-warn theory that produced the largest Roundup verdicts in history. But the same company that just won at the Supreme Court, Bayer, announced it is still proceeding with its proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement to resolve remaining claims. Think about what that means: the corporation that fought for nearly a decade to block these lawsuits is still running a settlement program to pay people who used its product and developed cancer. That is not the behavior of a company that believes every claim is worthless. It is the behavior of a company that knows the claims have value and is trying to control how much it pays for them.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm. Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court, and before he was a lawyer he was a journalist, which means he can take a Supreme Court ruling apart and explain it in English. Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm, in the rooms where claims like yours are priced and devalued, before he chose to sit on your side of the table. We take Missouri product-liability and toxic tort cases. The ruling changed the terrain. It did not end the fight. Here is exactly what it did, what it did not do, and what you still have.
What the Supreme Court Actually Decided in Monsanto v. Durnell
The Supreme Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — known as FIFRA — preempts state-level failure-to-warn claims against Roundup’s manufacturer when the Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the product and not required a cancer warning on its label. The vote was 7-2. The decision is binding federal precedent nationwide, overriding state failure-to-warn frameworks in every jurisdiction, including Missouri.
Here is what that means in plain English. FIFRA is the federal law that governs how pesticides are registered, labeled, and sold in the United States. Under FIFRA, the EPA reviews pesticide products and decides what warnings must appear on the label. The EPA reviewed Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, and determined it is “not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed.” The EPA did not require a cancer warning on Roundup’s label. FIFRA also contains a preemption provision — a clause that says states cannot impose labeling requirements that are different from or in addition to the federal requirements.
The Supreme Court’s ruling says: if a state lawsuit would require the manufacturer to put a cancer warning on Roundup — and the EPA specifically decided no cancer warning was needed — that state claim conflicts with federal law and is preempted. The state cannot demand a warning the federal government chose not to require.
The underlying case came from right here. John Durnell is a Missouri resident in the St. Louis area who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after more than two decades of volunteer spraying Roundup in St. Louis parks. A jury awarded him $1.25 million on a failure-to-warn theory — finding Monsanto failed to warn him about potential cancer risks. That verdict is the one the Supreme Court’s ruling now effectively overturns, because the theory it rested on — failure to warn — is the theory FIFRA preempts.
Bayer called the decision “good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation.”
That is the company’s own framing. Read it carefully. Bayer calls this a win for “regulatory clarity” — which means: the federal government said no cancer warning was needed, and now no state court can say otherwise. But regulatory clarity is not the same thing as scientific certainty, and a federal label approval is not a finding that the product cannot cause cancer. It is a regulatory determination made within a specific framework, under a statute written decades ago, by an agency whose leadership and priorities change with each administration. The EPA said “not likely.” The International Agency for Research on Cancer — the World Health Organization’s cancer arm — classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” That divergence between two respected scientific bodies is not a settled question. It is the central evidentiary tension in every surviving Roundup claim.
What the Ruling Blocks — and What It Does NOT Block
The ruling blocks state-law failure-to-warn claims. Specifically, it blocks claims that argue Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on Roundup’s label and is liable for not doing so. That theory — failure to warn — was the engine that drove the largest Roundup verdicts in history. It is now preempted where the EPA reviewed the product and declined to require a cancer warning.
What the ruling does NOT block:
Design defect claims. A design defect claim argues the product is unreasonably dangerous in its formulation — that glyphosate itself, or the specific combination of ingredients in Roundup, is dangerous regardless of what the label says. This theory was not directly addressed by the preemption ruling. It survives, though Bayer’s lawyers will argue that similar preemption logic should extend to design claims. That fight is ongoing.
Breach of express warranty. If Monsanto made specific, affirmative safety representations beyond the EPA-approved label — in advertising, in marketing materials, in statements to the public — and those representations turned out to be false, a breach-of-express-warranty claim may survive. This theory is based on the company’s own commercial promises, not on a duty to warn through the label. It falls outside FIFRA preemption if it is predicated on independent commercial statements rather than label requirements.
Fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. If Monsanto manipulated scientific literature, ghostwrote studies, or concealed carcinogenicity evidence from regulators and the public, claims based on that conduct may survive. The key distinction: these claims are about what the company did beyond the label — alleged fraud in the regulatory process itself — not about a duty to put a warning on the product. If the fraud was committed on the EPA, that is conduct the preemption ruling does not shield.
Class settlement participation. The $7.25 billion class-action settlement framework operates entirely outside the tort system. It is a contractual program Bayer agreed to fund. The Supreme Court’s preemption ruling does not affect it. Bayer confirmed this itself, stating it plans to proceed with the settlement regardless of the ruling.
The generalist reads the headline, tells the client the case is over, and closes the file. That is the move Bayer is counting on. The ruling eliminated the easiest, most proven theory — but it left three tort theories alive and a multi-billion-dollar settlement program still running. A lawyer who reads past the headline knows the terrain just shifted, it did not disappear.
FIFRA Preemption Explained: Why Federal Law Now Controls Your Warning Claim
FIFRA is the federal statute that regulates the registration, labeling, sale, and distribution of pesticides in the United States. It gives the EPA authority to review pesticide products and mandate specific label warnings. When a manufacturer submits a pesticide for registration, the EPA evaluates the product’s chemistry, toxicology, environmental impact, and human-health risks. The EPA then approves a label — and that label becomes the single, federally controlled document governing what warnings the product must carry.
The preemption provision in FIFRA says that states cannot impose labeling or packaging requirements that are “in addition to or different from” the federal requirements. This is an express preemption clause — Congress wrote it directly into the statute. The question the Supreme Court answered in Monsanto v. Durnell was whether a state-law failure-to-warn claim — which effectively demands a cancer warning the EPA chose not to require — counts as a state “requirement” that is different from the federal one. The Court, 7-2, said yes.
Here is why this matters for your specific situation. If your claim is that Monsanto should have warned you about cancer risk by putting a warning on the label, that claim is now preempted. A Missouri court cannot impose a warning duty that the EPA explicitly decided against. The reasonable-manufacturer standard that Missouri product liability law historically applied to failure-to-warn claims — the standard that allowed juries to find Monsanto liable for not warning — is now overridden by federal law for EPA-regulated pesticides like Roundup.
But FIFRA preemption is not unlimited. It reaches labeling requirements. It does not reach every theory of liability. The ruling is specific to failure-to-warn claims that would conflict with the EPA-approved label. Claims based on the product’s design, on the company’s independent commercial representations, or on alleged fraud committed on the regulator are different animals. They do not demand a different label. They demand accountability for different conduct.
This is the distinction a generalist misses. The headline says “most Roundup lawsuits blocked.” The lawyer who reads the opinion — not the press release — sees that “most” means “failure-to-warn claims,” and that several other theories were left standing. The fight has narrowed. It has not ended.
The $7.25 Billion Class Settlement: Your Primary Path to Compensation
Despite winning at the Supreme Court, Bayer stated it will proceed with its proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement, intended to resolve many of the remaining claims. This is not a future possibility. It is an active program. Approximately 200,000 Roundup-related claims have been filed against Bayer since it acquired Monsanto in 2018. The settlement framework is designed to process qualifying claimants — people with diagnosed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and documented Roundup exposure — through a structured compensation system.
The settlement operates outside the tort system. It does not require proving a failure-to-warn claim in court. It does not require surviving a preemption motion. It requires documentation: a qualifying NHL diagnosis, documented exposure history, and submission through the settlement framework’s claims process. Individual payout amounts are calibrated to factors defined in the settlement agreement — injury severity, exposure duration, age at diagnosis, and other variables the framework uses to assign value to each claim.
For most existing claimants and potential new claimants, this settlement now represents the primary recovery path. The case value range the ruling creates is stark:
Failure-to-warn claims (preempted): $0. These claims are subject to dismissal under the FIFRA preemption ruling. A court will grant Bayer’s motion to dismiss if the claim rests solely on a failure-to-warn theory.
Class settlement participation: approximately $25,000 to $100,000. Qualifying claimants who participate in the $7.25 billion settlement can expect payouts in this range, calibrated to injury severity and exposure history across the approximately 200,000 claims. This is the realistic recovery ceiling for the vast majority of claimants.
Surviving non-preempted theories: $250,000 to $1,500,000. The narrow category of claims that can establish a viable design defect, express warranty, or fraudulent concealment theory — with strong causation evidence and favorable venue — may carry this value range. These claims face substantial motion-practice headwinds, expert-admissibility challenges, and the full force of Bayer’s defense team. They are not easy cases. But they exist, and the value is real.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. These ranges are honest assessments of the post-ruling landscape, not promises. The settlement framework’s actual payout for your specific claim depends on your individual facts — your diagnosis, your exposure, your age, your treatment history — evaluated against the framework’s criteria.
The thing Bayer is counting on you not knowing: a company that just won the right to block most individual lawsuits is still running a settlement program to pay people who used its product and got cancer. If every claim were truly worthless, there would be no $7.25 billion settlement. The settlement exists because the claims have value. The ruling changed how that value is accessed — it channeled most claimants into the settlement framework rather than the courtroom — but it did not erase the value itself.
Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: The Injury at the Center of Every Roundup Claim
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a cancer of the lymphatic system — the network of vessels, nodes, and organs that carries infection-fighting white blood cells through your body. It begins when lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell, develop genetic mutations that cause them to grow uncontrollably and accumulate in lymph nodes, spleen, bone marrow, or other lymphoid tissue. Unlike some cancers that form a single tumor, NHL often manifests as swollen lymph nodes in the neck, armpits, or groin, along with fatigue, unexplained weight loss, night sweats, and fever.
The disease has dozens of subtypes, each with a different prognosis and treatment path. The most common aggressive subtype is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, which is typically treated with a chemotherapy regimen called R-CHOP — rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone — given in cycles over several months. Other subtypes require radiation therapy, immunotherapy, or, in relapsed or refractory cases, stem cell transplants. Treatment costs frequently range from $100,000 to $500,000 or more, depending on the subtype, the stage at diagnosis, the number of treatment cycles, whether relapse occurs, and whether a stem cell transplant is needed.
The medicine matters to your case in three ways. First, your medical records — the pathology report that identified the specific subtype, the staging scans, the treatment records, the chemotherapy logs — are the proof of your injury. Without a documented NHL diagnosis with a specific subtype and staging, no settlement claim or surviving tort claim can proceed. These records need to be collected immediately. Provider retention periods vary, and records can be archived, purged, or made difficult to retrieve as years pass.
Second, the latency between exposure and diagnosis matters. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma does not appear the week after you spray Roundup. The disease develops over years — potentially decades — between initial exposure and diagnosis. This latency period is why the discovery rule matters for your statute of limitations. In Missouri and most states, the clock to file a claim does not necessarily start on the day you were exposed to Roundup. It starts when you knew or should have known that you had NHL and that your exposure to Roundup may have caused it. For many claimants, that date is the date of diagnosis — not the date they last sprayed.
Third, the defense will exploit the fact that NHL has many causes. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is not a signature disease the way mesothelioma is for asbestos. It can arise from immune suppression, certain viral infections, other chemical exposures, family history, or with no identifiable cause at all — the medical literature calls these “idiopathic” cases. Bayer’s defense experts will argue your NHL came from somewhere else, or from nowhere, and that Roundup cannot be blamed. The counter is dose reconstruction: documenting how much Roundup you used, how often, for how many years, and in what concentration. Your exposure history — the duration, frequency, concentration, and application method — is the battleground in every surviving causation fight. Memories of spraying schedules from decades ago will only weaken with time. Personal records, receipts, and witness recollections need to be preserved now.
Bayer AG and Monsanto: The Corporate Structure Behind Your Claim
Bayer AG, a German pharmaceutical and life-sciences conglomerate, acquired Monsanto Company in 2018 for approximately $63 billion. At the time of the acquisition, Monsanto was the world’s largest seed company and the manufacturer of Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world. Monsanto developed and commercialized glyphosate — Roundup’s active ingredient — in the 1970s, and the product became the backbone of modern industrial agriculture.
When Bayer acquired Monsanto, it assumed Monsanto’s product liability exposure for the Roundup glyphosate herbicide line. That exposure turned out to be enormous. Approximately 200,000 Roundup-related claims have been filed against Bayer since the acquisition. The litigation produced several headline plaintiff verdicts before the preemption fight reached the Supreme Court — verdicts that were later reduced on appeal in some cases, and that are now largely preempted by the Durnell ruling.
The corporate structure matters for your claim. Monsanto Company — the original manufacturer, designer, and marketer of Roundup — is responsible for the label content submitted to the EPA and for the internal scientific research on glyphosate carcinogenicity. Bayer AG, as the parent that acquired Monsanto, is the proponent of the $7.25 billion class settlement and the entity that controls the litigation strategy. The caption defendant in most cases is still “Monsanto Company” because Monsanto was the original manufacturer, but the financial responsibility and the settlement authority sit with Bayer.
The federal multidistrict litigation — MDL-2741, In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation — is centralized in the Northern District of California before Judge Vince Chhabria. As of mid-2026, approximately 3,909 actions were pending in the MDL, though the total number of claims nationwide is far larger when you count the cases in state courts and the claims submitted through the settlement framework. The Durnell case itself originated in Missouri state court — a St. Louis area plaintiff, a Missouri jury, a Missouri verdict — before the preemption question was certified to the Supreme Court.
The St. Louis connection runs deep. Monsanto’s corporate headquarters were long located in suburban St. Louis. The company shaped the local economy, the local litigation landscape, and the local jury pool. Missouri courts — particularly St. Louis City and St. Louis County — historically produced plaintiff verdicts in product liability actions involving pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturers. That venue advantage is now neutralized for failure-to-warn claims by the federal preemption ruling. But the local connection remains relevant: if you live in the St. Louis area and used Roundup, your exposure history is tied to this place, and any surviving claim or settlement submission should be documented with that local context in mind.
Bayer described the ruling as good for “industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation.” A farmer advocacy organization, Farm Action, saw it differently:
“This ruling weakens protections for farmers, farmworkers, and the public, and it sets a dangerous precedent for other corporations seeking similar immunity.”
The agricultural industry broadly welcomed the decision, citing the need for a predictable, science-based regulatory system. But not everyone in agriculture agreed. Farm Action argued that farmers are not as dependent on Bayer’s products as the company claims, and that other crop protection options exist. That split inside the agricultural community tells you something: the debate about whether Roundup causes cancer is not settled just because the Supreme Court settled the legal question of preemption.
Evidence You Need to Preserve — and How Fast It Can Disappear
The evidence in a Roundup case degrades on multiple clocks simultaneously. Some of it is medical. Some of it is personal. Some of it is corporate. Each type of evidence is held by a different party, and each has a different shelf life.
Your medical records. The pathology report identifying your NHL subtype, the staging scans, the chemotherapy treatment logs, the hospital admission records, the oncologist’s notes — these are the foundation of both a settlement claim and any surviving tort case. Provider retention periods vary. Some hospitals archive records after seven years. Some oncology practices purge inactive patient files on shorter cycles. You should request your complete treatment record now — not when a lawyer asks for it, not when a settlement claim is filed, now. The subtype and staging in your pathology report determine how the settlement framework values your claim. Missing or incomplete records can reduce or eliminate your recovery.
Your exposure history. How long did you use Roundup? How often — weekly, monthly, seasonally? What concentration did you use — the consumer ready-to-use formula, the concentrated formula you mixed yourself, the professional-grade product? How did you apply it — with a hand sprayer, a backpack sprayer, a tractor-mounted rig? Did you wear protective equipment, or did you spray in shorts and a t-shirt? These details are critical for both settlement-claim valuation and any surviving causation case. The problem: exposure dose-response is the battleground in Roundup causation, and personal recollections of spraying schedules from twenty years ago will only weaken with time. Receipts, purchase records, product containers, photos of your spraying equipment, and witness statements from people who saw you use the product need to be gathered while they still exist. If you volunteered as a sprayer — as John Durnell did in St. Louis parks — the organization you volunteered for may have records of your service, the products you used, and the schedule you followed. Those records may not survive indefinitely.
Monsanto and Bayer internal documents. Prior Roundup litigation produced internal corporate documents — some alleged to show ghostwriting of scientific literature, manipulation of regulatory submissions, and concealment of carcinogenicity data from the EPA and the public. These documents may support surviving fraud and misrepresentation theories by showing knowledge or concealment beyond the EPA-approved label. Much of this material has already been produced in prior litigation and is accessible to lawyers handling Roundup cases. But newly filed claims must act promptly — document retention policies, corporate reorganizations, and the passage of time can limit access to internal files that have not yet been surfaced.
EPA registration files and scientific reviews. The EPA’s registration files for glyphosate — the scientific reviews, the agency correspondence, the regulatory determinations — establish the scope of what the EPA actually reviewed. This is critical for arguing that preemption should not extend to theories about information withheld from the agency rather than label language. Federal records are generally stable, but FOIA requests for EPA files have processing backlogs measured in months to years. If your surviving claim depends on showing that Monsanto concealed data from the EPA, the regulatory record needs to be requested early.
The IARC monograph and scientific literature. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) in 2015. The EPA concluded glyphosate is “not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed.” This divergence between two respected scientific bodies is the central evidentiary tension in every surviving Roundup claim. Published scientific records are stable — the IARC monograph and the peer-reviewed literature are not going to disappear. The issue is expert witness availability and whether your experts can survive Daubert admissibility challenges in your jurisdiction. In surviving tort claims, the defense will attack your causation experts under the Daubert standard, arguing that the scientific evidence does not support specific causation. Your expert team must be retooled to bridge the EPA-IARC analytical gap on general causation while surviving those challenges.
The fastest-dying evidence is your personal exposure history. Memories fade. Receipts get thrown away. Product containers get discarded. Witnesses move or pass away. The day you call a lawyer is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you — because the preservation letter goes out, the records demands go out, and the documentation process begins before the proof is gone.
What the Insurance and Defense Playbook Looks Like After the Ruling
Bayer’s legal strategy was already sophisticated before the Supreme Court ruling. After it, the defense playbook has a new first move and a set of follow-ups designed to channel claimants into the settlement framework at the lowest possible payout. Here are the plays you should expect, and the counter to each.
Play 1: The dismissal motion. Bayer will move to dismiss any pending failure-to-warn claim based on the Durnell ruling. The motion will cite the 7-2 Supreme Court decision as binding authority. If your case rests solely on failure to warn, this motion will likely succeed. The counter: amend the complaint to assert surviving theories — design defect, express warranty, fraudulent concealment — before the dismissal motion is decided. A lawyer who reads the ruling and does nothing but concede has failed the client. The ruling eliminated one theory. It did not eliminate the case.
Play 2: The “your case is over” letter. You may receive a communication — from Bayer’s claims administrators, from a settlement-class notice, or even from your own prior counsel — suggesting that the Supreme Court ruling means your case is finished and your only option is to accept whatever the settlement framework offers. The counter: the settlement framework’s payout is calibrated to your documented injury and exposure. Accepting a low valuation without ensuring your medical and exposure documentation is complete and properly submitted is leaving money on the table. The settlement is real, but its value to you depends on the quality of your submission, not on the other side’s goodwill.
Play 3: The causation attack. For any surviving tort claim, Bayer’s experts will argue that your NHL was idiopathic — meaning it came from nowhere, or from some other exposure, and cannot be tied to Roundup. They will cite the EPA’s “not likely” finding. They will attack your treating physician’s ability to testify on specific causation. They will challenge your expert witnesses under Daubert. The counter: dose reconstruction. The more specific and documented your exposure history — duration, frequency, concentration, application method — the harder it is for the defense to argue your NHL came from nowhere. The IARC’s “probably carcinogenic” classification provides the scientific counterweight to the EPA’s “not likely” finding. Expert witnesses must be retooled to bridge that analytical gap in jurisdictions with stringent admissibility standards.
Play 4: The preemption creep. Bayer will argue that the preemption logic from Durnell should extend beyond failure-to-warn to design defect claims as well. The argument: if the EPA approved the product’s formulation and label, a state-law design defect claim is also imposing a requirement different from the federal one. This argument has not been accepted by the Supreme Court, but Bayer will make it in every surviving case. The counter: design defect claims challenge the product’s formulation, not its label. They do not demand a different warning. They demand accountability for a product that is unreasonably dangerous in its design — a theory the preemption ruling did not address.
Play 5: The settlement squeeze. Bayer wants claimants in the settlement framework, not in court. The settlement framework gives Bayer control over valuation criteria, payout timing, and the total amount it pays. The counter: a lawyer who knows how claims are valued from the inside — what documentation maximizes payout, what evidence supports a higher tier, what the framework’s criteria actually reward — can ensure your submission is complete and properly valued. Lupe Peña spent years on the defense side, in the rooms where claims software and adjusters decide how to value and devalue people. He knows what the other side looks for and what they try to discount. That knowledge is the counter to the settlement squeeze.
Missouri Law and Your Deadline to Act
Missouri’s personal injury statute of limitations is five years. The clock generally runs from the date the injury was or should have been discovered. For non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma — a disease with a latency period between exposure and diagnosis — the discovery rule is critical. In most cases, the clock starts when you knew or should have known that you had NHL and that your exposure to Roundup may have caused it. For many claimants, that date is the date of diagnosis.
But do not assume the five-year clock gives you unlimited time. The discovery rule has limits. Some states impose an outer deadline — a statute of repose — that can cut off a claim even before discovery. Missouri’s rules on this should be confirmed for your specific situation. And the settlement framework may have its own deadlines — claim submission windows, documentation cutoffs, opt-out dates — that operate independently of the statute of limitations. If you miss a settlement-framework deadline, you may lose the primary path to compensation even if your tort deadline has not expired.
Missouri follows pure comparative fault, which means your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault but is not automatically erased. If a jury found you partly at fault — for not wearing protective equipment, for using a higher concentration than directed — your recovery would be reduced proportionally. For settlement-class participation, comparative fault is typically bypassed — the framework pays qualifying claimants based on injury and exposure documentation, not on individual fault analysis.
Missouri does not impose statutory caps on punitive damages in product liability actions. Historically, this made Missouri an attractive venue for Roundup claims — juries in St. Louis City and St. Louis County courts were willing to return significant plaintiff verdicts, and the absence of a punitive damages cap meant the potential exposure for Bayer was substantial. The Supreme Court’s FIFRA preemption ruling now overrides Missouri’s warning-duty framework for EPA-regulated pesticides, meaning state-law warning standards cannot serve as the basis for Roundup claims where the EPA reviewed and approved the label. The venue advantage that Missouri offered for warning claims is neutralized. But surviving non-preempted theories — design defect, express warranty, fraud — can still be pursued in Missouri courts, and Missouri’s lack of punitive damage caps remains relevant for those theories.
The bottom line on timing: if you have an NHL diagnosis and a history of Roundup exposure, the deadline clock is running on multiple fronts — the statute of limitations, the settlement framework’s submission windows, and the evidence-preservation clock. The safest assumption is that every one of them is shorter than you think. Contact us for a free consultation and we will check the specific deadline for your situation.
Your First 72 Hours: What to Do Now
Hour 1 through 24: Secure your medical records. Request your complete oncology file from every treating provider — the pathology report with your NHL subtype, the staging scans, the chemotherapy logs, the hospital admission records, the radiation or immunotherapy records, the stem cell transplant records if applicable. If you have relapsed, get the relapse records too. The subtype and stage in your pathology report are the single most important documents for valuing your settlement claim. Do not wait for a lawyer to ask for them. Request them yourself, today.
Day 1 through 3: Document your Roundup exposure. Write down everything you can remember about your Roundup use. What years did you use it? How often — every week, every month, every season? What concentration — the ready-to-use bottle from the hardware store, the concentrate you mixed with water, the professional-grade product? How did you apply it — hand sprayer, backpack sprayer, hose-end sprayer, tractor rig? Did you wear gloves, a mask, protective clothing — or did you spray in casual clothes? Where did you use it — your own yard, a farm, a public park, a golf course, a commercial property? If you volunteered as a sprayer — in a park system, a school district, a community organization — contact that organization and ask whether they have records of your service, the products used, and the schedule. Find any receipts, purchase records, or product containers you still have. Photograph them. Write down the names of anyone who saw you use Roundup and can confirm your exposure history.
Day 1 through 3: Do not sign anything. If you receive any communication from Bayer, from a claims administrator, from a settlement-class notice, or from any insurance representative — do not sign it, do not return it, do not respond to it without legal review. A quick settlement offer that arrives in the mail, with a release printed on the back, is designed to close your case at the lowest possible value before you understand what it is worth. If you already have a lawyer, contact them immediately and ask specifically how the Supreme Court ruling affects your pending case and what your options are. If you do not have a lawyer, call one before responding to anything.
Day 1 through 3: Do not give a recorded statement. If an insurance adjuster or claims representative calls to “check on you” and asks you to “just tell us what happened” — on a recording built to be quoted against you — decline. A friendly voice on the phone is not your friend. Everything you say can and will be used to reduce the value of your claim. The counter is simple: “I am not giving a recorded statement. I will have my lawyer contact you.” Then call us.
Day 1 through 3: Preserve physical evidence. If you still have Roundup product containers, keep them. Do not discard them. The product label, the lot number, the formulation information on the container are all evidence. If you have old receipts for Roundup purchases, keep them. If you have photos of yourself spraying Roundup — at work, at a park, on a farm — find them and save them. Physical evidence is the most fragile category. Once a container is thrown away or a receipt is recycled, it is gone.
How a Surviving Roundup Case Is Built
If your facts support a surviving tort theory — not just a settlement claim — here is how the case is actually assembled, week by week.
The preservation letter goes out first — to Bayer, to Monsanto, to any claims administrator, ordering them to freeze every document, every internal communication, every scientific record related to glyphosate carcinogenicity and Roundup’s formulation. This letter is the spoliation lock. If documents disappear after the letter is on file, the jury can be told to assume the lost records were as bad as the plaintiff says.
The medical records come next — the complete oncology file, organized by subtype, stage, treatment history, and prognosis. A life-care planner builds the cost stream: chemotherapy, radiation, immunotherapy, stem cell transplant if needed, follow-up monitoring, future treatment for relapse risk. A forensic economist reduces that cost stream to present value. The medical evidence is the foundation of the damages number.
The exposure reconstruction follows — a documented history of your Roundup use, built from personal recollections, receipts, product containers, witness statements, employment records, volunteer-service records, and any other source that pins down how much glyphosate you absorbed, over how many years, and in what concentration. An industrial-hygiene or toxicology expert may be retained to estimate your cumulative exposure dose.
The corporate-conduct discovery is where surviving fraud and concealment theories are built. Discovery in Roundup litigation has already produced internal Monsanto documents — emails, memos, scientific-drafting records — that plaintiffs allege show a pattern of manipulating the scientific record on glyphosate carcinogenicity. In a surviving fraud case, these documents are the proof that the company’s conduct went beyond the label and into the realm of deception. The defense will fight to keep these documents sealed, to limit their admissibility, and to argue that preemption shields even the fraud. That fight is the case.
The expert witnesses are the bridge between exposure and injury. A general-causation expert testifies that glyphosate can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in humans — pointing to the IARC classification, the peer-reviewed epidemiology, and the toxicological evidence. A specific-causation expert testifies that your NHL was more likely than not caused by your Roundup exposure, based on your documented dose, your latency period, and the exclusion of alternative causes. Both experts will face Daubert challenges. The defense will argue the EPA’s “not likely” finding precludes reliable causation testimony. The counter is the IARC classification, the dose-response literature, and the expert’s ability to distinguish your exposure profile from background risk.
The number at the end is built from all of it — the medical cost stream, the lost earnings, the pain and suffering, the diminished quality of life, and, in Missouri, the potential for punitive damages if the corporate-conduct evidence supports a finding of reprehensible conduct. That number is not a guess. It is an arithmetic problem assembled from documented costs, expert opinions, and the specific facts of your exposure and your injury.
Why Attorney911
Ralph Manginello has been licensed since November 6, 1998 — more than 27 years in courtrooms, including admission to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Before he was a lawyer, he was a journalist. That training matters in a case like this one, because the Supreme Court ruling is not simple, and the difference between a lawyer who reads the headline and a lawyer who reads the opinion is the difference between a client who is told “your case is over” and a client who is told “the terrain shifted — here is what we do now.” Ralph is the lawyer who reads the opinion. His background is the work of someone who has spent nearly three decades in the courtroom and still gives a damn about the person across the table.
Lupe Peña is a former insurance-defense attorney. He spent years inside a national defense firm — in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue people exactly like you. He knows how claims are valued from the inside: how the reserve is set in the first 48 hours, how the recorded-statement call is engineered, how the settlement framework’s valuation criteria actually work, and where the pressure points are. He now uses that knowledge for injured clients. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. Lupe’s experience is your advantage — the other side’s playbook, read by someone who used to write it.
We work on contingency. That means we do not get paid unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33% before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. Your first consultation is free. We have live staff available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — not an answering service, real people who can take your call at 2 a.m. when the fear is the worst. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911. Hablamos Español.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Contacting the firm is free and confidential. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. We do not claim to be your counsel on any specific Roundup case until we have evaluated your situation and you have retained us. What we do claim is that we will tell you the truth about what the Supreme Court ruling means for you — the whole truth, not the headline — and we will lay out every path to compensation that survives.
If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using Roundup, the Supreme Court ruling did not end your right to seek compensation. It changed the map. The $7.25 billion settlement is still running. Surviving legal theories still exist. The evidence you need is still available — but it is degrading every day you wait. Call us or call 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free. The call costs you nothing. Not calling could cost you everything.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I still sue Bayer or Monsanto after the Supreme Court Roundup ruling?
Yes — but the path depends on your legal theory. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell blocks state-law failure-to-warn claims under FIFRA preemption. If your claim is that Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on Roundup’s label, that specific theory is now preempted. However, three other legal theories may still survive: design defect (the product is unreasonably dangerous in its formulation), breach of express warranty (specific safety representations beyond the EPA-approved label), and fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment (alleged manipulation of scientific literature or concealment from regulators). In addition, the $7.25 billion class settlement framework remains available for qualifying claimants with documented NHL and Roundup exposure, regardless of the ruling.
What happened to the existing Roundup lawsuits?
The ruling is expected to result in the dismissal of thousands of pending failure-to-warn cases. If your existing case rests solely on a failure-to-warn theory, Bayer will likely move to dismiss it based on the Durnell ruling. However, cases that include alternative theories — design defect, express warranty, fraud — may survive the dismissal motion if those theories are properly pleaded. If you already have a lawyer, contact them immediately and ask specifically: what theories does my complaint include, how does the ruling affect each one, and what is the strategy going forward? If your lawyer tells you the case is simply over without discussing surviving theories or the settlement framework, get a second opinion.
Does the Supreme Court ruling affect the $7.25 billion settlement?
No. Bayer stated it plans to proceed with the proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement regardless of the ruling. The settlement framework operates outside the tort system — it is a contractual program Bayer agreed to fund, not a court proceeding subject to FIFRA preemption. The ruling does not affect your ability to submit a claim through the settlement framework if you have a qualifying NHL diagnosis and documented Roundup exposure. The settlement remains the primary recovery path for the vast majority of claimants.
I used Roundup and have non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma — what should I do right now?
Three things, immediately. First, request your complete medical records from every treating provider — pathology report, staging scans, treatment logs, hospital admissions. Second, write down everything you can remember about your Roundup use — years, frequency, concentration, application method, protective equipment (or lack of it), locations, and witnesses. Third, call a lawyer before responding to any communication from Bayer, a claims administrator, or an insurance representative. Do not sign anything, do not give a recorded statement, and do not assume your case is over because of a headline. The consultation is free.
What is FIFRA preemption and how does it affect my case?
FIFRA is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the federal law that governs pesticide registration and labeling in the United States. Under FIFRA, the EPA reviews pesticide products and decides what warnings must appear on the label. FIFRA also contains a preemption clause that prevents states from imposing labeling requirements different from the federal requirements. The Supreme Court held that when the EPA reviewed Roundup and determined no cancer warning was needed, state-law failure-to-warn claims — which would effectively require a cancer warning the EPA chose not to mandate — are preempted. This means a Missouri court cannot impose a warning duty that conflicts with the EPA’s label approval. However, FIFRA preemption reaches labeling requirements — it does not automatically reach design defect, express warranty, or fraud claims that are based on conduct beyond the label.
How long do I have to file a Roundup claim in Missouri?
Missouri’s personal injury statute of limitations is five years, typically running from the date you knew or should have known of your injury and its cause. For non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma — a disease with a latency period between exposure and diagnosis — the clock may start on the date of diagnosis, not the date of exposure. However, the settlement framework may have its own deadlines — claim submission windows, documentation cutoffs — that operate independently of the statute of limitations. Do not assume you have plenty of time. The evidence-preservation clock is shorter than the legal deadline clock, and the settlement framework’s windows may be shorter still. Confirm the specific deadline for your situation with a lawyer as soon as possible.
What if I already have a Roundup lawyer and a pending case?
Contact your lawyer immediately and ask three specific questions: What legal theories does my current complaint include? How does the Supreme Court’s FIFRA preemption ruling affect each of those theories? What is the strategy for amending the complaint to include surviving theories or for submitting a claim through the $7.25 billion settlement framework? If your lawyer cannot answer these questions clearly, or tells you the case is simply over without discussing alternatives, get a second opinion. The ruling eliminated the failure-to-warn theory — it did not eliminate every theory, and it did not affect the settlement. A lawyer who concedes without exploring every surviving path has not done the work.
Can I still get compensation if my case was a failure-to-warn claim?
Yes, potentially through two paths. First, the $7.25 billion class settlement framework remains available for qualifying claimants with documented NHL and Roundup exposure, regardless of the preemption ruling. The settlement does not require a failure-to-warn theory — it requires documentation of your injury and your exposure. Second, your lawyer may be able to amend your complaint to assert surviving theories — design defect, express warranty, or fraudulent concealment — that are not preempted by the ruling. The amendment must be made before the court rules on Bayer’s anticipated dismissal motion. The window to amend may be narrow, so acting quickly is essential.
What evidence do I need for a Roundup claim?
Two categories of evidence are critical. Medical evidence: your pathology report identifying your NHL subtype, staging scans, treatment records, chemotherapy logs, hospital admission records, and prognosis. Exposure evidence: documentation of your Roundup use — the years you used it, how often, what concentration, how you applied it, whether you wore protective equipment, where you used it, and who saw you use it. Receipts, product containers, photos, employment records, and volunteer-service records all support your exposure history. The more specific and documented your exposure, the stronger both your settlement claim and any surviving tort case. Both categories of evidence degrade over time — medical records get archived or purged, memories fade, receipts get discarded, witnesses become unavailable. Preserving evidence early is the single most important step you can take.
Is the Supreme Court ruling the end of all Roundup litigation?
No. The ruling is the end of state-law failure-to-warn claims where the EPA reviewed the product and did not require a cancer warning. It is not the end of design defect claims, express warranty claims, or fraud and concealment claims that are based on conduct beyond the label. It is not the end of the $7.25 billion settlement framework. It is not the end of the scientific debate — the IARC’s classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” and the EPA’s finding that it is “not likely” to cause cancer remain in tension, and that tension is the evidentiary battleground in every surviving claim. The ruling narrowed the litigation. It did not end it. Bayer is still paying to settle claims. The question is whether you get the full value of what your claim is worth or a fraction of it — and that question is answered by the quality of your legal representation and the completeness of your evidence.